Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Eve: A New VP9 Video Encoder Offering Much Better Results
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by float View PostI wonder, are the patents for h265/4 valid in the EU? If they are not, I see absolutely no point in using VP9.
Just like the majority of "open" standards. Including but not limited to Vulkan, C as well as the POSIX standard. There is absolutely no reason to refuse the use of an open standard just because it is not being developed in the open, assuming that it's better.
What makes it a proprietary codec in your opinion?Originally posted by FishB8 View Post
The format is open, royalty free, and uses the New-BSD license. What's the problem?
Software patents. An open source implementation of a patented codec is only free until you try to use it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by andreano View PostIf you're referring to x265, no that's an implementation, not a format — it cannot possibly solve the problems of the format, that there are, presently 3, organizations (MPEG LA, HEVC Advance and Technicolor SA) that demand a nonzero amount of money per copy of "a method or apparatus" that infringes their patents on H.265.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tessio View PostSoftware patents. An open source implementation of a patented codec is only free until you try to use it.
Originally posted by andreano View Postdistros ship without MP3 support, and Mozilla without H.264
Just wondering, is there any other way for them to enforce royalties other than software patents? In a way that would apply to more countries. If yes, then it is indeed a problem.
Comment
-
Originally posted by float View PostTo my knowledge software patents are not a thing in Europe.
H.264 patents outside the US
I've seen a number of comments recently along the lines of "I'm in Europe, so the H.264 patents don't apply to me; why are you not letting me have a browser that plays my Youtube videos?" So I took a look at the list of patents on H.264. Or rather, the first 6 pages of the 43 page list. Excluding the US, there are relevant patents granted in at least the following countries:- Europe: Germany, France, UK, Finland, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Bulgaria, Liechtenstein, Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Hungary, Ireland, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Portugal, Slovenia
- Asia: Japan, China, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, India
- Americas: Canada, Mexico
- Australia
I wasn't reading very carefully; I'd be suprised if I didn't miss a few, or if a few more don't come later in the list somewhere.
That was from 2010, and you can bet things have only gotten worse since then. x265 is surely worse than 264 in terms of patents.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tessio View Post
*face palm*
How could the Alliance for Open Media possible chose a proprietary codec as base for their free codec?
Comment
-
Originally posted by DanL View PostI'm not really sure why they're comparing a VP9 encoder to x264. VP9 is supposed to be competitive with HEVC.
* Which isn't much really, larger transform sizes is the main thing, but that's basically only relevant for 4k. For example, the folks at the doom9.org forums who test x265 are *turning off* large transform sizes at HD and lower than HD resolutions, because doing so results in a better picture. So unless you're encoding 4k, the main advantage of newer codec formats (large transform sizes) doesn't even come into play.Last edited by Gusar; 03 May 2016, 09:52 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by float View PostTo my knowledge software patents are not a thing in Europe. USA does not get a special right to define what everyone else in the world may or may not use nor the right to limit free software implementations.
And the world is not just EUA and Europe. Many other countries enforces software patents.
Comment
Comment